Good question. Everyone's decision is personal, but here's my reasoning and feeling.

I'm planning to preserve the purchasing power of both my after-tax budget and my retirement funds as nearly level as possible, from now at age 60 to age 95. Why so cautious?

• My stubbornness or defiance or something. Our tax system is highly anti-capital and I want to see if it's possible for me to conserve the capital despite that.

• My pride, which makes me unwilling to depend financially on any one else if I can possible avoid it. I'd rather leave behind unspent money.

• After those several decades of living below my means and recent booming stock markets, I don't have especially expensive tastes and it's easy to live on 3% to 4% withdrawals. In fact, I recently got almost a year behind in spending my allocated withdrawals.

• There is an ancient naval principle -- Preserve your maneuvering room! Accordingly, I'm keeping the principal intact in case something expensive comes along that I really, really want to buy (medical treatment not covered by insurance, maybe) or that I am forced to pay for, like a severe market crash or the confiscation of my social security benefits.

• Your point about premature death is well made. Most of the men in my family have died younger than I am now. So, I indulge myself -- trips, gadgets, and now a new house, stepping up from an old one. It all fits inside those modest withdrawals.

• It's not clear that becoming disabled would reduce my spending. I'd travel less but hire more personal help. Might be about even. I keep promising myself that if ever I can't drive safely anymore, I will use taxies rather than succumb to cabin fever or depend on other people.

• I am highly averse to cat food, although my dogs love it.

• I plan to leave most of the remaining assets to a tax-exempt foundation whose work I support. One of its important projects is educating people on how each representative and senator actually votes and the costs of those votes, to compare with the campaign promises.